User talk:Standonbible

This user may have left Wikipedia. Standonbible has not edited Wikipedia since 8 October 2010. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Welcome to the Talk page for the Wikipedian Standonbible!

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Archives

I am often accused of POV pushing due to my unique perspective on certain topics. Rather than screaming "POV pusher" and leaving, I would like to ask that you explain what you thought was POV about the edit I made that you take issue with. This clears up a lot of confusion right from the beginning. You can also get an idea of why I believe what I believe by take a look at this. If you would like to discuss the theory of evolution with me, please take a look at this page. Thanks!

Thanks!

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		I'm not sure that it's mentioned often enough that your polite, rational efforts on controversial pages like Evolution and so on are appreciated, even by people who disagree with some of your opinions. So, thank you! Vanished user ^talk 05:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the barnstar, Adam! I appreciate it! I must say I never thought I'd get a barnstar from the other side! (What is the proper response to a barnstar, anyway? I've searched but I can't figure it out. Am I supposed to put it on my main user page?) standonbible^Talk! 13:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's what's generally done. And, well, let's face it: you have shown notable politeness even when people, inured by those on your side who had been rather rude and declamatory, presumed you were the same. That alone deserves some sort of thanks. Vanished user ^talk 15:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, gee then - thanks! standonbible^Talk! 15:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are one of the best users on this biased website, and I, a creationist, highly appreciate your calm efforts to change controversial pages. I myself know it's very hard to stay calm in arguments with users like Roland Deschain, but you take it in stride. Ratso 18:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Roland is generally very nice once he understands where you are coming from. I can think of some other more petulant editors but I don't want to name names.... :) standonbible^Talk! 04:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice account

You put quite a lot of work into this account. Few trolls take the time to create such a funny character before starting to spam the wikipedia with bible stuff. 83.216.243.132 (talk) 22:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Time to introduce ourselves

Hi, we've encountered each other a couple of times and I wanted to "shake hands". I am sometimes rather terse in my comments, and hope I haven't offended you personally. While we clearly disagree on a number of topics, I admire and respect your work as an editor. You might have noticed that I Watch both science and religion articles, and I "defend" both from POV editing. Simply put, I think that religion doesn't belong in science articles, and science (or atheistic opinions) don't belong in religous articles. And blatant vandalism, of course, doesn't belong anywhere. If any of the pages you work on are vandal-targets, feel free to let me know and I'll Watch them too. I would enjoy an opportunity to assist you or work with you constructively; I think we share similar goals as far is the project is concerned. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 05:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shakes the good Doctor's hand. Nice to meet you - thanks for introducing yourself over here! I've noticed your comments on a few of the issues I've been involved with and I must say that you have been very fair throughout the whole process. I also try to protect both religious and scientific articles from POV editing although my view of exactly what constitutes POV may be slightly different from yours. As far as science in religious articles and vice versa is concerned: science is the process of taking data (facts) and interpreting them (theories) according to bias (presuppositions). If mainstream science has a presupposition that is related to religion, then it probably needs to be mentioned, but it doesn't need to overpower the main point. Personally, I don't have a problem with scientific inquiry in a religious article as long as it is relevant and NPOV (just stating the majority scientific viewpoint doesn't automatically mean NPOV).

I think that a lot of editors here have seen too many upset creationists that want to push POV and as a result they are quick to scream "creationist pov pushing" whenever a creationist proposes any change to anything relating to evolution. See the current quandry at Talk:Answers in Genesis for a glaring example of that. I think that we do share the common goals of making WP more informative and less confusing for all our readers - I look forward to working with you whenever the occasion arises.

Feel free to ask for assistance whenever you encounter a new creationist editor who doesn't know when to quit. Sometimes a gentle "I agree with you but you need to do X, Y, and Z" can go a long way. I'll ask for your help if I get attacked when I'm trying to make a legitimate edit. It's nice to meet you and I look forward to a lot of good wikiediting! standonbible^Talk! 13:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you made that offer. I wanted to ask you about handling those situations, but wasn't sure it would be proper. Your efforts along those lines are greatly appreciated. I agree with your assesment of the general situation, and I look forward to working with you in the future. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 18:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just leave me a message on this page and I will be happy to give my input whenever new editors or angry editors think they are being discriminated against because they are creationists (it is an easy impression to get even though it's WP:NPOV and generally not discrimination). I'd love to get your input on the discussion on this page! standonbible^Talk! 04:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I will create a subpage - User talk:Standonbible/Discussion of evolution for the ongoing evolution discussion on this page. standonbible^Talk! 04:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Talk:Evolution tonight

Please take a breather and calm down on the Talk:Evolution page. Everyone's pushing hard, and it's over the line into personal attacks. Take the night off and come back in the morning. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 07:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry; I am not getting upset or anything. I'd rather not get involved in a big fight or anything but I don't intend to blithely sit there and let someone call me a liar and stick to it. Thanks for your advice! standonbible^Talk! 07:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw what was happening, tried to ask for some calm but got edit conflicts, so I posted here at ANI. I don't want to see anyone get blocked, and things seemed to be escalating. I'll keep watching and try another "cool down" request as well. BTW - I meant what I said about you...I'd offer you a gallant salute, but my keyboard chokes on it when I try :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 07:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man - I appreciate the 21-key salute! It's nice to know that you can disagree with someone and still respect them. I can promise you I won't get overly anxious or start spouting personal attacks - being called a liar tends to get under my skin but I can live with it; I've been called a lot worse when there was less evidence! standonbible^Talk! 07:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean, "liar" would actually be the most polite four letter word I've ever been called. I've requested a cease-fire on the relevant talkpages, hopefully it's over. If Samsara should happen to make another inflammatory comment, please just let it go...anyone who reads that page now will see what happened pretty clearly. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 07:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, we were posting to each other's pages at the same time. I'm glad you're ok with archiving, and I agree we should wait (I intended to). Sometime tomorrow we can just quietly put that to bed. Yer a good sport :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 07:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am still pretty confused as to what happened. I apologize; I was sleeping I guess when the worst conflicts erupted. I suspect that there might have been some alcohol involved, given the fact that this was a holiday evening. It seems pretty nonsensical to me. I do not want to see anyone banned either, over what seems like a ridiculous dispute.--Filll 15:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahah! So that explains it. I was slightly peeved but I couldn't figure out why he was getting upset - I suppose that a fifth would do it to ya (not that I would know - ;) ). Well, it's all over now and he archived it so hopefully it will be forgotten. standonbible^Talk! 15:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone wishes to inquire about my alcohol consumption, they may do so directly at my talk page. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely don't wish to inquire about anyone's alcohol consumption. standonbible^Talk! 16:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I did not offend anyone with that speculation. I just was wondering what could account for this unexplained conflict.--Filll 16:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Psst...Shh...

I'm sorry that happened to you. I'm reminded of the book "The Four Agreements". One of the agreements in this book goes something like don't take anything personally, even if it appears to be directed at you.

I believe in evolution, but I'm also fair and open-minded. If you've edited the way I just saw you comport yourself in your "situation", then you have a bright future as an editor indeed.

Furthermore, you appear to be a thoughtful and couragous young man. In these times, that's something to congratulate.

Sincerely, NinaEliza 07:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am a paralegal in a criminal law firm in real life so I understand how important it is to keep from getting too upset in confrontational situations. Hopefully Samsara will cool off - I suppose he just got upset about something and overdid it. standonbible^Talk! 07:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by everything I said. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's too bad. Refusal to admit when you have been wrong reflects poorly on you. standonbible^Talk! 16:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please guys. Let's not start this again. Let's move on, whatever the problem was that started this. Surely it is not so important.--Filll 16:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree wholeheartedly. Let bygones be bygones. standonbible^Talk! 16:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do hope this gets sorted. Seems like a misunderstanding, if ye ask me, as it is possible to revert without it showing if someone else reverts in the interim. Vanished user ^talk 04:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me about it. I think I've been gypped out of 100 edits over the past week, just because other editors beat me to the punch on reverts : ) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 05:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that wasn't the issue. I said that I had reverted "I don't know how many" vandalisms to the Evolution page in the past few days. He said I had only done one revert and that was to overwrite him. Actually, I had done 4 or 5 direct reverts to the Evolution page and I had left {{subst:test}} tags on a bunch of vandals. Anyhow, when I tried to explain he accused me of lying/bad faith and I asked why he was violating WP:AGF and it just escalated from there. I don't appreciate being called a liar but I'm going to let it alone because it really isn't worth fighting over. standonbible^Talk! 15:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, is it or isn't it done now? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's done. No hard feelings. :-) standonbible^Talk! 16:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minor request

Regarding this edit - when warning users, please sign the comments. That allows later people to tell at a glance when the last time the IP was warned. JoshuaZ 02:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Sorry - I didn't mean to. Thanks! standonbible^Talk! 02:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creation-evolution controversy

Hi! I want this article to fairly represent the facts, however, at the moment, it does an awful job at explaining them, has parts unbalanced, and so on. I (and others) am probably going to be making major changes to it over the next few days/weeks, and, well, I'd like your assistance to make sure we still stay fair to the creationist side, for instance, that, in an effort to point out a common bad behaviour, we don't end up accidentally saying that every creationist engages in it, or, well, I suspect you'll find lots of things as we go. Basically, the state at the moment is that it has some frankly bizarre omissions - for instace, before I statrted editing, it listed every creationist claim, no matter how odd or bizarre in detail, then literally just gave some variation on "Critics, however, disagree, claiming this misrepresents the facts" in a one-line pseudo-dismissal.

Unfortunately, I haven't yet managed to correct this fairly, and am worried I may slip into overstating my position. An, well, if you an help, please do so. Thanks! Vanished user ^talk 11:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it my best shot! standonbible^Talk! 15:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your recent contributions to the talkpage. I've only skimmed through them, not studied in-depth yet, but your insightful comments are always welcome. Doc Tropics 21:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! standonbible^Talk! 23:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You earned this

**The Sandwich of Exceptional Excellence** (Potato Salad of Congeniality cluster, 1st. class) In Panis, Veritas.
Awarded to standonbible for your exceptional contribution creating a new table to use at talk:Evolution. Thanks! Doc Tropics 21:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually ordered this sandwich days ago, but the delivery guy was running late. I hope it's still fresh : ) Doc Tropics 21:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes a sandwich is better when it's been left out for a while. You know, all the juice seeps through and makes it exceptional - THANKS! standonbible^Talk! 23:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Man, if I wasn't on the Specific Carbohydrate Diet I would devour that sandwich. Hey Standonbible, I've seen your attempts to change the evolution page; I, as well as many other creationists, appreciate the effort, and you seemed to be coming a lot closer than I did. I admire you for staying calm and refraining from losing it at the evolutionists here. It's extremely difficult, and I'm sorry to say that I have lost it many times (consequently, I've been blocked several times). I just want to say, thanks for remaining so reserved and calm and for giving us a good image ( a lot better than I've been giving). Keep it up! Scorpionman 16:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Get well soon!

Hi, Standonbible! Sorry to see you're unwell: I was wondering why you hadn't been about of late. I hope you recover quickly. Vanished user ^talk 04:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree. Say, I wonder if some user named Pro Bug Catcher poisoned his water with anthrax so he wouldn't be able to edit? (Ha ha, joke, just kidding, not serious, no need for block) Ratso 03:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have no problem with Standonbible. Get well soon. (Ratso be respectful please). 24.202.212.244 19:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC). Pro bug catcher 19:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't seen you around !

I hope you are ok. Drop me a line. I have a proposal for you.--Filll 15:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow you are alive :)

--Filll 15:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I remember correctly, but I think it had to do with some thoughts for a book. I thought I might bounce some ideas off you. But I realize you are pretty busy.--Filll 15:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your comment to the OrangeMarlon

You might want to come see what he's up to at Talk:Evolution. This invitation is similar to one I saw made to him to fight right wing christian terrorists. In any event, lots of obfuscation, flaming, baiting, etc. 65.73.44.65 04:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuos Poet[reply]

I was just wondering...

You seem to be about the only Creationist whom most everyone respects from both sides of the evolution/creationism thing, which is why i'm asking that if you're not too sick perhaps, that you might be able to help us out on the recent Talk:Creationism discussion, which is quite far reaching and I don't think will be resolved by anything I or any other creationist says, as it appears we're all actually in some anti-science conspiracy bent on turning the planet back to the dark ages except for you heh. Homestarmy 04:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

Thank you for experimenting with the page IPhone on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. FisherQueen (Talk) 17:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert of a good-faith edit by an established user and subsequent use of the {{test}} on that user's Talk page is not appreciated. Please see Wikipedia Policy. standonbible^Talk! 17:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too be fair, it did look like the typical HS vandalism that is prevalent on wikipedia. It would be useful to source it. Pretty funny for sure. :) David D. (Talk) 17:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Go Fish (Christian band)

An editor has nominated Go Fish (Christian band), an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Go Fish (Christian band) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 15:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Mike huckabee img.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Mike huckabee img.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 15:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Churches of Christ page

You contacted me regarding "minor edit" of this page. I went to the page and saw that my add/change is now gone - it no longer says that "not even hand-clapping is permitted" during a cappella worship. Your user page says: "if a statement is verifiable, decent, relevant, and reflects a neutral point of view, then go ahead and post it." That's what I thought I was doing. I went to a Church of Christ college for three years, attended mandatory chapel services as well as the campus church, and visited a few Church of Christ congregations; I had to find out the hard way that hand-clapping was not permitted. What did I do wrong? --June w (talk) 04:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey June, you didn't do anything wrong - not with regard to the hand clapping statement. I just placed the message on your Talk page regarding the nature of the "minor" edit - you shouldn't mark an edit as "minor" if it actually affects the meaning of the article. The "minor edit" option is for superficial changes that are mostly cleanup issues. See the minor edit page for more info there. From that page:

The distinction between major and minor edits is significant because editors may choose to ignore minor edits when reviewing recent changes; logged-in users might even set their preferences to not display them. If you think there is any chance that another editor might dispute your change, please, do not mark it as minor.

As to the inclusion of the hand-clapping reference ... it was removed about nine hours later by Ichabod here. In his edit summary, he explained "hand clapping is permitted in some progressive CoC's...." While I am well aware that most Churches of Christ do not allow any hand-clapping (ostensibly because Paul never told Timothy to "clap thy palms one to another"), it is true that a few congregations do allow or even encourage this. So instead of making the blanket statement "not even hand-clapping is permitted" (especially since it doesn't fit well in that paragraph and seems a bit surprising to a casual reader), it might be better to add a paragraph underneath saying something like, "It is for the same reasons that most Churches of Christ discourage hand-clapping, raised hands, or similar actions of worship." Mess around with it and see what you come up with! Thanks for editing. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough with my earlier post. standonbible^Talk! 20:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation! Okay, I'm going to try to gather the courage one more time to edit that page... --June w (talk) 08:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anno Domini edit

Thank you for trying to reword the passage in the Anno Domini article about the erroneous meaning of AD. It is certainly appropriate for you to change the wording if you think you can make it clearer. But in doing so, please do not remove references.

On particular problem we often come across in Wikipedia is that an editor will insert in an article a statement that many people use a word or phrase incorrectly, and explain why the misuse is wrong. Other editors will come along and claim that the passage shouldn't be in Wikipedia at all, because hardly anyone ever makes that error. So we need a reliable outside source to show whether the error is commonplace enough to bother mentioning. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out, Gerry! standonbible^Talk! 02:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take a stab at entropy

Here is a sandbox I created for you: [1]. Feel free to start compiling references and information there. I can make a few suggestions if you like. Try Talkorigins to start, for example, but there are many other places.

Part of the problem is, we have multiple definitions of entropy, and some disagreement among definitions. To really understand thermodynamic entropy, one has to use differential geometry and the calculus of forms.

Another good place that deals with entropy is information theory, but this is only vaguely related to the entropy in statistical mechanics, which is in turn connected with thermodynamic entropy.

You will be dealing with nonequilibrium thermodynamics in the case of living things.

If you really do this, you will learn a tremendous amount and make a huge contribution to Wikipedia as well. Good luck.--Filll (talk) 23:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperphysically existing "stuff"

Hi. Can you confirm whether or not you made this edit to Wikipedia? I mentioned you in my blog post last year, and am currently creating an article on MyWikiBiz about the possible (hyperphysical) existence of hyperphysically existing "stuff". Anthony (talk) 16:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Although I disagree with you on the origin and development of life. Cheers! Seonookim (What I've done so far) (I'm busy here) (Tell me your requests) 05:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]